(Add, answer, reformulate, correct, and discuss study questions for this author and reading)

• What is the difference between political and non-political government?

When I talk about a non-political government in a conversation I am usually referring to a government that is not democratically elected. However I am unsure if this is what we are referring to here. Can anyone help? What is a non-political government. Is it rulers that govern independent from the political realm of modern states, perhaps like religious rulers of the Nation of Islam, or is it referring to despotic governments that rule unelected. If is is the latter, then I think Aristotle (along with other classical thinkers) realised that a political government, survives on the equality of its citizens. A political government could not govern well when there were only very rich and very poor people because the former "could only rule despotically" and the poor could only "be ruled like slaves" leading "to a city, not of free persons but of slaves and masters"- would a city governed like this count as a non-political government.- kurtsharpe Perhaps a better way of stating the question is what is the difference between the government of a political community and the government of other communities, according to Aristotle - xmarquez Jul 28, 2008

What does it mean to say that the state (polis) is natural? In Aristotle’s philosophy, the origin of the cities or polis it is a natural human behavior. Humans beings tend to regroup themselves. It is not a common enemy or fear who makes humans live together. That is not the origin of the “polis”. War is not the origin of the cities. For Aristotle, “polis” is a natural association. For this reason he qualifies human beings as “zoon politikon” ("political animal”). Thus, Aristotle despises Sparta’s political regime because all its institutions are dedicated to war. And for him, a city does not have to think all the time in war. War is tool to reach peace A citation would be useful - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008. Also, for him, the fact that a city thinks about war all the time, it is bad because, this city is thinking about its own destruction. But that does not mean Aristotle despises war, on the contrary, he thinks war is always a possibility. War is part of human relation word choice - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008.

• What other (non-political) communities are natural? Are there any "artificial" communities? What distinguishes different communities from one another?

The purpose behind the community makes it natural or unnatural. Groups that create functionality in a persons life are edifying to them unclear - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008. To Aristotle, a natural community completes itself or brings about achievement in the end Well, not quite: they satisfy certain natural needs - xmarquez. Aristotle uses the term 'good life' to illustrate this concept of completeness due to community. Aristotle begins at the bottom and most fundamental building block when depicting natural communities, family. The hierarchy in ascending order: family (for basic human reproduction), farm (to meet basic sustanance needs), village (to produce the tools needed for the farm to operate), and polis (to reach something above mere sustanance; 'the good life'). What is the function of each of these? This could also be expanded a bit with appropriate citations - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008 Aristotle believes there are also economic communities, those in which incorporate and identify some of the previous natural communities. Each community exists to benefit the participants, whether it is the slave abiding by the masters orders, the serf following the guidelines of the owner, or the father teaching his child the difference between right and wrong. In some form, unequal though it may be, each participant adds to the community and inversely the community invests into them. Ways to distinguish communities vary from the number of participants, the gain of those involved, or the status difference between all members. What are the most essential distinctions, though? - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008
The difference between a 'natural' community and an 'artificial' community is the basic necessity of belonging to the group. For example; if a person belonged to a chess playing group they could leave at any time without detriment to themselves but if they were to leave their family that would be 'unnatural'.

• What does it mean to say that human beings are political animals? What makes them political?

Man is the only animal that has been given the gift of rational thought, speech, and a sense of good and evil (justice). Human beings in their 'natural' progression lead to the formation of a political structure - the polis which exists as a mechanism for the sake of the 'good life', one guided by virtue in which humans use their abilities to the fullest.

• What does the good life mean?

Socrates said that all men desire happiness. For Aristotle to seek the good-life was to promote the fullness of ones nature. Every being has it's own inherent nature, and the good life occurs when these natures are completely fulfilled. A plant has the nature to grow, reproduce, and nourish itself. A good plant will be one that does this fully and will appear healthy and strong. Animals have a higher nature to fulfill then plants with their more acute sensory abilities. Therefore an animal's "good-life" is when it can sense well, be able to move well, have a healthy appetite and more. Humans have an even greater potential nature that brute animals, with the abilities of intelligence and reasoning- so for the good life humans must satisfy all the other basic needs and have the ability of good choice and reason. - kurtsharpe

man nature has specific powers, namely, intellect, will, and the concupiscible and irascible appetites. And so human happiness is going to lie in the perfection or right ordering of those human powers.

• What does it mean to say that the state (polis) perfects or completes the family and the household?

Aristotle believe there was a 'natural' progression from the family (which is the smallest unit for procreation), to the household (which provides for the immediate necessities for life), to the village (which provides for the wider economic environment for living, e.g jobs, goods and services) to the polis which completes a human being's (wealthy male citizen) development. This completion in development comes about through the fulfillment of the persons mental requirements, partaking in the arts and politics. This is the good life, what we might call a 'rewarding' life. "And the state is the union of families and villages in a perfect self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honourable life." Aristotle, Book 3, chapter 9, line 40.

Further to this, the state is seen as a perfection of the family as it balances out the imperfect nature of man and also his household. Without the state "the unholiest, the most savage and the most abandoned to gluttony and lust" is created. "Justice belongs to the political society". The state enforces its strive for perfection on individuals through education and habituation, thus protecting the children from the partial mind of the father and giving it to the objective law of the state.

• What are natural slaves?

Natural slaves are people whose characteristics mean that they are better off being ruled by another. They may have a weak mental capacity for example that means that if they were left to themselves they could not survive or survive very well.

A natural slave is defined (usually) by characteristics unique to the body and the soul. The first characteristic, in terms of the soul, is weakness. The weakness of a soul is the lack of fortitude to govern over others (which is an inherent trait in an individual).
“…he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature.”

An example of those born with a weakness of the soul is a person born with a servile soul - this encompasses the inability to command authority amongst your peers. In reality those qualities that define a strong or weak soul would derive from learning (e.g. education in reasoning) coupled with the opportunity that comes from your parents status at birth. In Aristotle's day it would seem natural that those who were slaves appeared to be born with a weakness of the soul because the qualities that they learned were those of servitude. The vice versa is also true.

Aristotle compares this weakness to animals. Aristotle however, does not go as far as to equate slaves with animals. Even though the work and service they provide to the master is indistinguishable between a slave and an animal the difference is in the capacity to be able to understand that they should be ruled.
The second characteristic, in terms of the body, is strength. Nature has endowed slaves with the physical capacity to carry out their service.
“Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves”.

It is, however, not always true that a slave will be born (or raised) with the characteristics that would have seemed natural to Aristotle. "But the opposite often happens -- that some have the soul and others have the bodies of freemen". 'Nature' in some cases will get it wrong. The type of bodies that Aristotle believes nature endows slaves with are ones that are suited to manual labour, just as the ox and other animals of burden.

• So is slavery actually compassionate (for those weak of mind)?

Aristotle argues that it is both "expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters" (I.VI) It is actually better for the slave to be ruled and, in a sense, taken care of by the master. When this relationship is natural, the slave and the master are friends and working in the same interest.

• Since Aristotle indicates that slaves are a requirement for the polis; Would the life of a peasant be more dignified for all - as most people would be free (in the aggregate) to pursue activities for their own interests?
• Do any natural slaves exist, according to Aristotle?

There are two facets to this question, the first is whether Aristotle believe in theory natural slaves existed and the second is whether he believed they actually existed.

Argumentation in favour of the proposition that Aristotle thought there were natural slaves:

Prime facie it does not seem to be in dispute that Aristotle believed that slavery could exist:

• "it is clear, then, that in some cases some are free by nature and others slaves: for whom slavery is both beneficial and just". (1.5))

In Aristotle's work there is a clear sense of hierarchy. The point behind slavery, for Aristotle is doing what is in the best interest of the man. Some people are meant to govern, while others are meant to be governed. Aristotle believes that some people need to be ruled. He believes that in certain cases, there are people whom it would be better to be slaves then free. An analogy for Aristotle is the similarity between master and slave; and a man and an ox.

It is unclear whether this is in the exclusive realm of theory, or whether Aristotle actual believed some slaves fitted into this analysis.

Argumentation against the proposition that Aristotle in reality thought there were natural slaves:

On the second facet to this question it is the author's opinion that it is a point of interpretation as to whether we construct Aristotle words to mean he actually believed in reality that slaves existed. The question mush be: how many people fit into this category? This point can only be answered by a personal interpretation of the constituent elements of a natural slave.

As noted above a natural slave has a weakness of the soul that creates an inability to command/rule (1.5); it seems reasonable to infer from Aristotle that the strength of a person's soul is linked to their virtue and the stronger that virtue the less likely one is to be ruled. Aristotle however, says that the difference between a ruler and a slave is not a matter of degree but a distinction based on kind:

"the virtue of the ruler we in maintain to be different from that of the subject; the one being the virtue of the rational, and the other of the irrational part"(1.13)

Therefore it seems to suggest that Aristotle believe the balance between the rational side of a human and their irrational side will determine the servile nature of that human (this seems to be a matter of degree and not kind. It may be argued that the imbalance between bands of rulers and those that are ruled are great as to break the nature of degree). Women and children had a ratio that meant they were more irrational than men, therefore subject to rule.

The reasoning then that Aristotle follows seems to become contradictory (or in the author’s opinion a sign that Aristotle did not think natural slavery actually existed), because Aristotle first states that:

"[natural slaves]…since they are men…share in rational principle, [therefore] it seems absurd [to] say that they have no virtue"(1.13). He suggests that being a human endows one with some capacity for rational virtue (id est "temperance, courage justice").

Prima facie this does not seem contradictory, because it would just seem that a small amount of rationality does exist in a slave. Aristotle however, seems to contradict this notion by stating earlier that natural slaves have "no deliberative faculty at all" (1.13). When coupling these two sentiments together the constituents of the people that are natural slaves are at best negligible or at worst non-existent.

Further to the analysis Aristotle argues that there are also people who are slaves, due to war and other instances that do not come within the sphere of his definition of a natural slave. It seem as a matter of pragmatism that they have been relegated to such a position.

• How can it be good for a natural slave to be ruled by another?

When natural slaves, who are ruled by another, ultimately benefit from being animate tools it is good for both slave and master. Just as a sheep or a cow benefit from being looked after in a nice paddock, with feed and water- so too would natural slaves be better off in being ruled by another. This seems to prove too much - don't most people benefit from beeing fed etc. by others? But the slave does not get to pursue any of his/her own purposes - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008 Just as Mill legitimises despotism against the barbarian, natural slavery can be legitimised "provided the end be their improvement". Mill and Aristotle seem to be thinking about different things: if somebody is a natural slave, then he/she cannot be improved (his slavery is natural, not conventional, after all) - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008

The relationship between master and slave represents the ability for one man to control another. If a natural slave is a man who works using their bodies, and this is the best that they can do, then it is best for them to be ruled by another. Just as it is advantageous for an animal to be under human control and be protected from predators, a natural slave can benefit from being ruled by another. They have the means to contribute to the polis and the security of having a master to provide for.

• Are non-Greeks natural slaves?

Aristotle in I.VI makes a comment on the Greek's relativism when it come to slavery; "Wherefore Hellenes do not like to call Hellenes slaves, but confine the term to barbarians... Hellenes regard themselves as noble everywhere, and not only in their own country, but they deem the barbarians noble only when at home, thereby implying that there are two sorts of nobility and freedom, the one absolute, the other relative." In pointing this out Aristotle is clearly indicating that the relativism is relative, the 'Barbarian' nobles would feel the same way towards the Greeks assumedly. The Persian's might treat the Greek nobles as nobles on their own terms, i.e., sending emisaries and so forth, but still consider them the Barbarians relative to themselves.

• Does Aristotle think Greeks are superior to non-Greeks? Why?

This answer needs evidence - and it is at any rate inconsistent with the answer of the previous question. Aristotle didn't necessarily believe what other Greek citizens believed; and see above. On the other hand, there are citations that might support this position - xmarquez Jul 28, 2008 Moreover, the question is why - what reason does he give for the superiority of one people to another? - xmarquez Jul 28, 2008

Perhaps a reason why Aristotle assumes barbarians are natural slaves is the distinction he makes between how different societies are ruled. Greeks are ruled politically with inequalities for the benefit of the polis; man and woman, father and child, slave and master. Non-Greeks, such as the Persians, tended to be ruled despotically with one person with total power. Aristotle could have supposed that a society ruled despotically meant that everyone was a slave to their ruler. This could be reason for the belief that Greeks were superior to barbarians.

• What does it mean to say that the purpose of a "state" (polis) is "the good life"?

The polis as "the good life" may not be good for everyone. The purpose of the state being the good life maybe for those that are the 'citizens' of the state, those with control and wealth. But what about the slaves etc? those who are not citizens may not be the good life?. But on saying this the polis is better then any life as it gives a sense of security, control, and belonging to some sort of community for most. "Polis" are there to grow with power and wealth over each other giving the 'citizens' a sense of power and happyness to their achievements, therefore a "good life".

• Why do mere relations of interest fail to constitute a political community (Politics 1280b1ff)?
• Why couldn't law be "a surety to one another of justice", according to Aristotle? Why is the political community not simply an association with a view to common protection and the prevention of harms resulting from the action of others?

The safety and protection of one's own property is necessary for the production of goods and services needed to live own's life. If a political community was only concerned with protecting external harms from impacting on the members of a society, then it would be only concerned with protecting the necessary conditions required for the society to exist. Aristotle's conception of the political community is broader; it should not only protect, but should be in place to ensure a "good" or virtuous life which is above and beyond the basic requirements of existence. Common protection is thus not sufficient to constitute a political community in Aristotle's view.

• Does Aristotle think that political communities are a kind of "social contract"? Why or why not?

No I don't think Aristotle saw the polis in terms of a social contract agreement. The social-contract exists so that individuals can leave the state of nature, due to fear of violence and death. In a polis, certainly a partnership existed, but this community did not exist to avert injustices or to provide economic stability . As discussed above, it existed to provide the good life- "[the community] exists for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together". - kurtsharpe

I think it could be considered a social contract, although imagined in a different sense.To put it simply, Aristotle suggests that people form a community to make their lives good. Liberal theorists suggested that people formed a community to stop their lives from being bad.
There is a difference, but I think it's perhaps more subtle than you let on.
- tommathews

• What is Aristotle's attitude towards trade? Does he think trade is beneficial to a community? Why or why not?

Aristotle acknowledges that it is necessary to position a city where it is able to participate in trade. States must both import those necessary non-native goods and export those which are found in abundance. Aristotle does, however, argue that a "city ought to be a market, not indeed for others, but for herself." The aim of the city should not be becoming a powerful trading hub in search of large profit, but to gain those goods necessary for the good life of its citizens.

• How does Aristotle's attitude towards trade compare to modern attitudes? Are modern attitudes an improvement over Aristotle's? Why or why not?
• What is Aristotle's attitude towards labor? What are his reasons? How does his attitude towards labor relate to his views of a good regime?
• Does Aristotle defend or condemn democracy?

Before I explain why Aristotle rejects democracy, we have to see how he see the political regimes. For him there are three kind of political regimes:

• Monarchy
• Polity
• Aristocracy

All of them can be corruptible:

• Tyranny
• Democracy
• Oligarchy

The first group of regimes is the good because they look for the common interest. But the second group of the regimes is the bad because they look after only for the interest of their own class:

• A monarchy is good when the monarch looks for the interest of all the community. Its corruption is tyranny. The tyrant only looks for his own interest.
• A polity is good when the people look after the common interest. Its corruption is democracy. People look for the interest of poor people.
• An Aristocracy is good when the aristocrats look after the interest of the city. Its corruption is Oligarchy, when rich people look after interest of rich people.

Like every ancient Philosopher, Aristotle does not agree with democracy or a popular regime. He thinks the city has to be ruled by someone capable of it, someone who has the right education to do it. He does not believe in the mass because is easy to corrupt it. Consider the passages in book 3 about the relatively smaller corruptibility of a group of people: 1286a and following. Does that sound as if Aristotle thought that the mass is more easily corrupted?

• What is the best sort of regime like, for Aristotle? How does it compare to modern states?

Aristotle thinks, like Polybius, in a mixed regime: the Republic. But his republic is not like we know it. He thinks in a democratic aristocracy. The aristocracy is a group of people who can look after the city’s common interest. And therefore, they have been prepared to do that. They have the right education. *8This is not correct - Polybius for one thing comes later than Aristotle, and Aristotle does not think the truly best regime is mixed - xmarquez Jul 24, 2008

• What would Aristotle think about the Athenians' assertion, in the Melian dialogue, that "justice only enters where there is equal power to enforce it, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must"?
• What is a common table and an agora?
• What is Aristotle's view of war? Is war generally justified?
• What would be the international role of the best regime?